[TheGreatWhiteBuffalo]

First off I'd like to Thank Davidk for his participation.

There is much that I would like to add, but for time limitations I will keep this very brief...

A contradiction exists in fact many of them exist and wham I was hit with another one, the two thoughts do contradict one another.

McKenna I hope you are paying close attention, and Davidk for this there is 'no bridge'...

Look read and know the book of Job as Wayseer has introduced this text and compare Job to James the verse that Jen used James 1:13-14... From Genesis to Revelation Satan is pure evil in the book of Job where do we find evil?

I'm telling you 'all' that the creation of evil is a creation of People and not GOD, this evil that people have created is used only to control the masses and is not allowing people to hold other people accountable for their own actions and applying proper discipline.

We are all disciples of the teachings of Jesus but we are not givien the correct information from the leaders as they have wrongly interpretted the lessons...

Perceptions and reactions have created a darkness to grow around the earth we need to become the beacons and lights of GOD teaching and sharing and picking each other up and caring for one another.

The true message is to know Love... To know GOD through Love...

There are many contradictions in the Bible for the Bible is written by the hands of people trying to manipulate the message for profit, not that the Bible doesn't contain the words of GOD through several prophets but that too many people have manipulated the text for personal gain.

Again we wrestle with the history of the Bible and all other Religious texts that have been created.

I could say so much about those that abuse others and the meek are the victims those humble children abused by bullies. The damage created takes too many years to repair and there is no reason for such a lag in today's society with the technology that we possess...

Human Nature vs. Nature and Humans we can do much better than we have been doing in the sense of the greater community we could do a much better job.

In the end it would be a blessing to both our neighbors and GOD...

[davidk]

You understand the need for unity and diversity but have abandoned the Christian explanation of God and His creation, leaving the only rational explanation behind.
--
"We cannot know God in a hand-me-down way. ... we must do it alone... with an empty mind. All of our formulations, theories, theologies and constructions amount to nothing more than speculation and guesswork." - Russ

We must experience alone, from within, with an empty mind and believe in no more than our speculations and guesswork?
--
"The first formula is a "cultural package" of beliefs and values that creates tremendous stress on all our relationships, including our relationship with God. If you're busy trying to copy all the latest trends... then you're not spending any time trying to understand what makes you unique from God's point of view, and you're not spending any time practising (sic) empathy for other people's way of dressing or other people's way of thinking." -canajan, uh?

"A community based on the first formula will eventually reveal itself in its political governance. ... It ain't pretty." -canajan, uh?

"Inside your confused weary human brain" the belief in the deity of Jesus Christ is incompatible with modern 'scientific' world views. So one follows the surrounding societies "cultural package" rather than Biblical teaching. The essence of theological liberalism is allowing thinking and living to be shaped by the surrounding society’s finite views and values instead of God's revelation, creating a false sense of reality. It's unable to explain man's extraordinary nobility and man's "... extraordinary level of cruelty towards God" and his fellow man. All the while, Biblical Christianity has been verbalizing the sufficient explanation for centuries.

There's no "God the Mother" in Christianity. L/P theology, take your place in the line of lost sheep with the "cultural package" of beliefs and "your unconscionable sense of superiority". There is no God the Mother. We are not angels. The only 'divine' we have is a verb or an adjective, for we are only the finite receptor of the knowledge of The Divine, the triune God, the infinite external source (of everything) revealed to us through Scripture. Ya know, all those references from Luke and James and Job and such about God and Jesus so often found quoted in these posts.
--
"...act of grand arrogance,... the popularist contemporary promise that the individual is the measure of all things." -Wayseer

The Grail: Not a leap of faith, but the historic Christian faith, where I am invited to ask my sufficient questions in regard to the existence, order and complexity of the universe but also in regard to the existence of man and then believe God and bow before Him metaphysically in knowing that I exist because He made man, and bow before Him morally as needing His provision for me in the substitutionary, propitiatory death of Christ.

[minsocal]

davidk, on May 19 2008, 07:00 PM, said:

You understand the need for unity and diversity but have abandoned the Christian explanation of God and His creation, leaving the only rational explanation behind.
--
"We cannot know God in a hand-me-down way. ... we must do it alone... with an empty mind. All of our formulations, theories, theologies and constructions amount to nothing more than speculation and guesswork." - Russ

We must experience alone, from within, with an empty mind and believe in no more than our speculations and guesswork?
--
"The first formula is a "cultural package" of beliefs and values that creates tremendous stress on all our relationships, including our relationship with God. If you're busy trying to copy all the latest trends... then you're not spending any time trying to understand what makes you unique from God's point of view, and you're not spending any time practising (sic) empathy for other people's way of dressing or other people's way of thinking." -canajan, uh?

"A community based on the first formula will eventually reveal itself in its political governance. ... It ain't pretty." -canajan, uh?

"Inside your confused weary human brain" the belief in the deity of Jesus Christ is incompatible with modern 'scientific' world views. So one follows the surrounding societies "cultural package" rather than Biblical teaching. The essence of theological liberalism is allowing thinking and living to be shaped by the surrounding society’s finite views and values instead of God's revelation, creating a false sense of reality. It's unable to explain man's extraordinary nobility and man's "... extraordinary level of cruelty towards God" and his fellow man. All the while, Biblical Christianity has been verbalizing the sufficient explanation for centuries.

There's no "God the Mother" in Christianity. L/P theology, take your place in the line of lost sheep with the "cultural package" of beliefs and "your unconscionable sense of superiority". There is no God the Mother. We are not angels. The only 'divine' we have is a verb or an adjective, for we are only the finite receptor of the knowledge of The Divine, the triune God, the infinite external source (of everything) revealed to us through Scripture. Ya know, all those references from Luke and James and Job and such about God and Jesus so often found quoted in these posts.
--
"...act of grand arrogance,... the popularist contemporary promise that the individual is the measure of all things." -Wayseer

The Grail: Not a leap of faith, but the historic Christian faith, where I am invited to ask my sufficient questions in regard to the existence, order and complexity of the universe but also in regard to the existence of man and then believe God and bow before Him metaphysically in knowing that I exist because He made man, and bow before Him morally as needing His provision for me in the substitutionary, propitiatory death of Christ.

Are you certain?

[minsocal]

minsocal, on May 19 2008, 09:14 PM, said:

Are you certain?

Then that is a "closed" system of beliefs.

[minsocal]

Wayseer, on May 17 2008, 05:31 PM, said:

If my premise is wrong then you have to prove that we do not learn from others.

Why?

[canajan, eh?]

davidk, on May 19 2008, 10:00 PM, said:

You understand the need for unity and diversity but have abandoned the Christian explanation of God and His creation, leaving the only rational explanation behind.
--
"We cannot know God in a hand-me-down way. ... we must do it alone... with an empty mind. All of our formulations, theories, theologies and constructions amount to nothing more than speculation and guesswork." - Russ

We must experience alone, from within, with an empty mind and believe in no more than our speculations and guesswork?
--

DavidK, the cut-and-paste job you did on Russ's prose does not, in my view, reflect at all what Russ was attempting to express. You are determined to use any means within your power to belittle those of us who are expressing a point of view that differs from your own. Again, I ask you to please not engage with my material. Please start a different thread. I'm sure it is quite clear to everybody who reads this site that you and I have diametrically opposed views on everything.

It is deeply ironic that you would attempt to challenge my position with the above statement: "You understand the need for unity and diversity but have abandoned the Christian explanation of God and His creation, leaving the only rational explanation behind." This is too funny. Leaving only the rational behind? I am, of anybody posting on this site at present, the most radically mystical mystic of anyone. I am the scientist who is also a full-time channeller, a full-time mystic who gets up in the morning and goes to bed at night having spent the contemplative portion of my day (that is, the portion of my day not spent with family and community) engaged in active quantum communication with assorted quantum beings (i.e. angels), who talks every day to Jesus, who reaches out to God the Mother and God the Father in everything I do. So get off my case, Davidk. I have a wildly complete, joyful, trusting, blissful relationship with God, and I do not need your "help" to "save" poor helpless me from my "error."

I am not speaking to you. I am content that you and God will work it out. I am speaking to other Progressive Christians who have the same kinds of questions that I have, who are looking for a way to reconcile issues such as faith vs. science -- issues that have been forced apart by dogmatic Christians (like you, Davidk) and also by dogmatic scientists. This false dichotomy between faith and science must end. You, however, are not helping -- you toss around cliches and isolated phrases (some of which include scientific terms), but you aren't saying anything that Augustine of Hippo, the Council of Nicaea, the Council of Constantinople, and the Council of Chalcedon didn't cover in the 4th century. I am suspicious of anyone who is fearful of asking new questions about God. To me, it demonstrates a lack of trust in God's motives. It's also hypocritical to demand that Christians today abide by 1600-year-old theology when we do not abide by 1600-year-old medical treatments or 1600-year-old communication technologies. Surely God is not afraid of our questions! Surely God is not so insecure and so petulant as to demand fideism!

And you know what else, Davidk? Jesus doesn't seem to be afraid of questions, either. I ask him questions every day about science and theology. It was he, not I, who insisted that spiritual insight is obtained by fully integrating scientific knowledge with spiritual practices. It was he who put the emphasis on "apoptosis" rather than "apotheosis."

I will not be apologizing to you for anything I have said here, Davidk. I am not speaking any more strongly to you than you do to others.

Jen

This post has been edited by canajan, eh?: 20 May 2008 - 08:14 AM

[McKenna]

davidk, on May 19 2008, 10:00 PM, said:

-canajan, uh?

Well that was rather rude.

davidk, on May 19 2008, 10:00 PM, said:

"Inside your confused weary human brain" the belief in the deity of Jesus Christ is incompatible with modern 'scientific' world views. So one follows the surrounding societies "cultural package" rather than Biblical teaching. The essence of theological liberalism is allowing thinking and living to be shaped by the surrounding society’s finite views and values instead of God's revelation, creating a false sense of reality. It's unable to explain man's extraordinary nobility and man's "... extraordinary level of cruelty towards God" and his fellow man. All the while, Biblical Christianity has been verbalizing the sufficient explanation for centuries.

Okay. First of all. You do realize that we openly call ourselves Progressive Christians. Just as you openly call yourself a conservative Christian. So...duh that we are trying to take Christianity into the modern world, while you feel it has always been sufficient just the way it is. I mean...seriously...it isn't like this is breaking news or anything.

Secondly, I think most of us would argue that the Bible (as well as other early Church writings, and writings throughout the ages) also represents beliefs "shaped by the surrounding society's finite views and values." The culture of the time did influence what was written in the Bible - to deny that is, in my opinion, to deny reason and rationality, which you seem to be fond of. Furthermore, Christianity has changed over the centuries as society has changed. (Sorry, but I don't really think what Jesus had in mind was what the Catholic Church became - a huge megapower dominating an entire continent; nor could the Popes of old have anticipated the Protestant revolution. And how about the huge scope of churches today? Quakers, Catholics, Pentacostals, Mormons - all quite different...so which one, may I ask, truly preserves the true "Christianity"? This is a quick and simple question to answer. Please inform me.)

Progressives want to find the truth at the core of Christianity as much as you. It's not like we're on some diabolical mission to destroy Christianity. I'd appreciate if you'd stop implying that we're simply trying to get a Christianity that will "sell" today, like we're trying to market some watered-down version that people could believe today. That is NOT what we are trying to do, at least not the people here, who I believe are honest seekers. What we are trying to do is get to that core of Christianity, the truths at the heart of it that transcend culture/society; and we are also trying to understand it in light of today's scientific knowledge, which because of RATIONALITY (oh my goodness it's that word again) we cannot just reject! I.e. we can't see Jesus in comparison to Adam (except metaphorically) because Adam never existed, or at least, he was not the first man, and he did not eat a magical apple that condemned humanity to suffering.

Our mission is no different from yours. We are seeking truth. Please stop repeating that "L/Ps" or whatever you're calling us are doing otherwise. It's really getting tiresome.

"We will continue to delete posts in all areas of the boards - including this one - that we do not feel are presented in a manner that is respectful of other viewpoints, or seeks to convert, or coerce, or attack." <- I do not believe you are respecting our viewpoint (since you do not seem to have allowed yourself to learn anything from anyone here - in which case I must again ask what you are doing here...perhaps you think you will change our minds...but then that would be seeking to convert us, wouldn't it?).

[canajan, eh?]

McKenna, on May 20 2008, 10:23 AM, said:

Secondly, I think most of us would argue that the Bible (as well as other early Church writings, and writings throughout the ages) also represents beliefs "shaped by the surrounding society's finite views and values." The culture of the time did influence what was written in the Bible - to deny that is, in my opinion, to deny reason and rationality, which you seem to be fond of. Furthermore, Christianity has changed over the centuries as society has changed. (Sorry, but I don't really think what Jesus had in mind was what the Catholic Church became - a huge megapower dominating an entire continent; nor could the Popes of old have anticipated the Protestant revolution. And how about the huge scope of churches today? Quakers, Catholics, Pentacostals, Mormons - all quite different...so which one, may I ask, truly preserves the true "Christianity"? This is a quick and simple question to answer. Please inform me.)

Beautifully said, McKenna.

I actually agree with everything you wrote, but I picked out the quote just above because I had decided a few minutes ago to get back on this thread and challenge the statement Davidk made in Post #13 about "Christianity," and when I got here, I discovered you had already beat me to the punch with your bang-on observations about the huge scope of the church today.

In Post #13, Davidk made the rash and insupportable statement that "the 'path' you [meaning me, Jen] are expounding upon is vastly different from Christianity. If that is your path, that is undeniably up to you, but do not call it Christianity." Ever since then, I've been thinking about the gall of Davidk's statement, and I've been wondering whether he would have the courage to get back on here, and say to us something all the lines of, "Well, you know, I guess when I review all the books about church history, and when I look at the dispute in the New Testament between Paul and the early church in Jerusalem headed by James, and when I factor in the very early differences between the Johannine community's understanding of Jesus (Gospel of John, Epistles of John) compared to, say, the Gospel of Mark's understanding of Jesus, then, well, you know, perhaps I was a bit one-sided in stating that my own orthodox understanding of Christianity is the only correct way of understanding Jesus and Christianity, because clearly there has never been, in all the history of Christianity, a single, correct, uniformly accepted idea of what it means to follow Jesus."

But I don't think Davidk has the courage to be honest about what is written in the Bible, let alone be honest about the catastrophic harm inflicted by the orthodox Western church on many others (please note, Davidk, the small "o" in orthodox, and the capital "W" in Western, as I would not want anyone here to think that I have not read up on church history) -- including, but not limited to, the harm intentionally imposed upon Jews, Muslims, other Christians, aboriginal populations, women, children, and those who are not fully abled.

Meanwhile, the Grail for Davidk, is not a leap of faith, but the historic Christian faith. Like . . . give me a break. There isn't even a single, unambiguous understanding of Jesus in the New Testament that is agreed upon by all the canonical writers, let alone a homogeneous "historic Christian faith."

Davidk, I await with considerable interest the Houdini-like contortions you will go through to try to explain to us poor ol' unenlightened Progressives, boobs that we are, why your statement is not factually wrong, and why the real problem is that we misunderstand you and try to distort your message.

Ain't life a bitch.

Jen

This post has been edited by canajan, eh?: 20 May 2008 - 11:34 AM

[davidk]

minsocal, on May 20 2008, 12:14 AM, said:

Are you certain?

yes

[davidk]

McKenna, on May 20 2008, 10:23 AM, said:

Well that was rather rude.

At first, I coudn't figure out what you were talking about. Then I realized I had mistakenly typed a "u" instead of an "e" in her blog name.

[canajan, eh?]

davidk, on May 20 2008, 05:29 PM, said:

QUOTE(minsocal @ May 20 2008, 12:14 AM)
Are you certain?

yes

Hey, Minsocal, don't worry about it. Davidk is always certain. He is always certain that he is right, despite the fact that he frequently contradicts himself. If one reviews his posts as a body of work, there are many irreconcilable discrepancies in what he says one day compared to what he says another day. On this thread alone, you can see how his position changes like the wind as he struggles to "prove" he is correct while many of the rest of us are wrong. I'm not sure Davidk even realizes he is doing this. But it's impossible to have a meaningful relationship with him. His need to be right takes precedence over all other motives he may legitimately have.

Sometimes he seems to want to be part of a community, but then he turns around and says nasty things such as his post-script in #17: "Good to see your caustic little self back, OA. I've missed you. You must have missed me too, dedicating an entire post to me! Love, david." He can't seem to stop himself.

Even when he is flat-out, 100% off-base with his facts, he will not back down from being "right." Instead, it is "our" fault because "we made him do it" by so incensing him with our "error" that he had "just had to" respond before checking his facts.

He is really starting to remind me of Paul in the Letter to the Romans. Blame it in the Law; blame it on Sin; blame it on Satan; blame it on blasphemers -- but for God's sake don't blame it on your own immaturity.

Jen

[davidk]

minsocal, on May 20 2008, 12:48 AM, said:

Then that is a "closed" system of beliefs.

That was disposed of earlier, with your agreement.

[davidk]

McKenna, on May 20 2008, 10:23 AM, said:

Okay. First of all. You do realize that we openly call ourselves Progressive Christians. Just as you openly call yourself a conservative Christian. So...duh that we are trying to take Christianity into the modern world, while you feel it has always been sufficient just the way it is. I mean...seriously...it isn't like this is breaking news or anything.

I commend anyone in their noble journey toward truth, particularly when carrying Chistianity into the 21st century. That's Christianities goal, continuously revealing the truth about Jesus Christ, seriously.
--

McKenna, on May 20 2008, 10:23 AM, said:

Secondly, I think most of us would argue that the Bible (as well as other early Church writings, and writings throughout the ages) also represents beliefs "shaped by the surrounding society's finite views and values." The culture of the time did influence what was written in the Bible - to deny that is, in my opinion, to deny reason and rationality, which you seem to be fond of. Furthermore, Christianity has changed over the centuries as society has changed. (Sorry, but I don't really think what Jesus had in mind was what the Catholic Church became - a huge megapower dominating an entire continent; nor could the Popes of old have anticipated the Protestant revolution. And how about the huge scope of churches today? Quakers, Catholics, Pentacostals, Mormons - all quite different...so which one, may I ask, truly preserves the true "Christianity"? This is a quick and simple question to answer. Please inform me.)

I noticed L/P Theology was not among the choices of being true.
-
When it is said: "Christianity has changed over the centuries as society has changed", we understand what was said, that is: the "cultural package" has changed Christianity.

When it is said: "The culture of the time did influence what was written in the Bible", we understand what was said, that is: Fickle culture wrote the Bible. A reasonable assumption of what was said.

However, if it were said: "The culture of the time did influence how the what was written in the Bible", we understand what was said, that is: the propositional statements from God to man, found in the Bible, were by way of the language and culture to whom it was introduced. That would also be reasonable.

Our decision about which is correct predisposes whether our world view is closed, as in L/P Theology, or open.
--
The authenicity of the Bible does not preclude man from attempting to displace the autonomous God with autonomous man and just enough religious language to sound authentic; generating some serious issues and misinterpretations. The past provides enough evidence.

This is where I differ with the L/P philosophy, which replaces God's propositional statements with inner self-experiences or crystal balls as the source for answers, denying His revelation, creating uncertainty, claiming irrationality as rational, and been unable or have refused to reveal any reliable sources; which have all been admitted to.
--

McKenna, on May 20 2008, 10:23 AM, said:

Progressives want to find the truth at the core of Christianity as much as you. It's not like we're on some diabolical mission to destroy Christianity. I'd appreciate if you'd stop implying that we're simply trying to get a Christianity that will "sell" today, like we're trying to market some watered-down version that people could believe today. That is NOT what we are trying to do, at least not the people here, who I believe are honest seekers. What we are trying to do is get to that core of Christianity, the truths at the heart of it that transcend culture/society; and we are also trying to understand it in light of today's scientific knowledge, which because of RATIONALITY (oh my goodness it's that word again) we cannot just reject! I.e. we can't see Jesus in comparison to Adam (except metaphorically) because Adam never existed, or at least, he was not the first man, and he did not eat a magical apple that condemned humanity to suffering.

Our mission is no different from yours. We are seeking truth. Please stop repeating that "L/Ps" or whatever you're calling us are doing otherwise. It's really getting tiresome.

We hunger for the truth. We will not be inexhaustably certain about everything. But we can reasonably be certain of the absolute truths. Christianity knows God to be the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. In our pride we struggle to modernize God's dependable, reliable, trustworthy, complete and sufficient message for the world. He is Holy. We are not the eternal autonomous One. It is highly presumptuous for us to believe we can fix His image by changing His message so it will be more palatable for 'modern' man. Because He is the Creator He is greater than our culture/society. It is because of the belief in Him modern science was born. There is no magic apple, let's not water down the Bible.
-
I'm not 'implying' the sale of anything, I'm telling you: some are selling and some are buying. Whether they are knowingly selling a lie, it is not for me to decide. caveat emptor.
-
The core of Christianity is "where I am invited to ask my sufficient questions in regard to the existence, order and complexity of the universe but also in regard to the existence of man and then believe God and bow before Him metaphysically in knowing that I exist because He made man, and bow before Him morally as needing His provision for me in the substitutionary, propitiatory death of Christ."
--

McKenna, on May 20 2008, 10:23 AM, said:

"We will continue to delete posts in all areas of the boards - including this one - that we do not feel are presented in a manner that is respectful of other viewpoints, or seeks to convert, or coerce, or attack." <- I do not believe you are respecting our viewpoint (since you do not seem to have allowed yourself to learn anything from anyone here - in which case I must again ask what you are doing here...perhaps you think you will change our minds...but then that would be seeking to convert us, wouldn't it?).

-
I think much has been misunderstood due to some overly sensitive egos (at times, even mine).
Any discussions I may have with anyone I've tried to keep philosophical and not personal. I have made the attempt to strictly apply the 'L/P' to theology or philosophy and not to any person or persons.

[minsocal]

canajan, eh?, on May 21 2008, 05:07 AM, said:

Hey, Minsocal, don't worry about it. Davidk is always certain. He is always certain that he is right, despite the fact that he frequently contradicts himself. If one reviews his posts as a body of work, there are many irreconcilable discrepancies in what he says one day compared to what he says another day. On this thread alone, you can see how his position changes like the wind as he struggles to "prove" he is correct while many of the rest of us are wrong. I'm not sure Davidk even realizes he is doing this. But it's impossible to have a meaningful relationship with him. His need to be right takes precedence over all other motives he may legitimately have.

Sometimes he seems to want to be part of a community, but then he turns around and says nasty things such as his post-script in #17: "Good to see your caustic little self back, OA. I've missed you. You must have missed me too, dedicating an entire post to me! Love, david." He can't seem to stop himself.

Even when he is flat-out, 100% off-base with his facts, he will not back down from being "right." Instead, it is "our" fault because "we made him do it" by so incensing him with our "error" that he had "just had to" respond before checking his facts.

He is really starting to remind me of Paul in the Letter to the Romans. Blame it in the Law; blame it on Sin; blame it on Satan; blame it on blasphemers -- but for God's sake don't blame it on your own immaturity.

Jen

Again we agree. The "are you certain" is part of davidk's signature response from another thread. It was a reminder to him. And yes, he frequently condradicts himself.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 21 May 2008 - 06:56 PM

[MOW]

Watch out guys. He's making you change the original subject of this thread .


MOW

[minsocal]

MOW, on May 21 2008, 05:50 PM, said:

Watch out guys. He's making you change the original subject of this thread .
MOW

Yes, the usual tactic. Really irritating after a while. I was enjoying the dialogue with Jen (the topic starter) until .... It would be great to get the topic back "on issue".

This post has been edited by minsocal: 21 May 2008 - 08:33 PM

[minsocal]

As I mentioned briefly in a prior post, the issues that Jen has raised transcend territorial battles over who is "right" or "wrong". There are ethical considerations involved that far outweigh the choice of a preferred theory. We want what is is best for our children as they develop into mature adults. We want healthy communities in which all can thrive. We want a spiritual life that is not overly constricted by "rules" that suit or favor only a few.

The "middle ground" position suggested by grampawombat is the position many would like to achieve at some point in their lifetime. Development is a lifetime process. The "hierarcy of heart" can give way to "oneness of heart", and so-on. Another way of saying this is that one can be "open to the new" at any age, and there is no necessary point at which a personal system "closes". New ideas are constantly being added to our body of knowledge. Jen has stated that, after some 2000 years, we may finally getting the message of Jesus. I believe this is true. Throughout the history of Christianity, their has been too much emphasis on dogma (a form of hierarchical cultural rules).

Why is this an ethical issue? The reason is simple. Jen has done a lot of research. Research exists to find out how things work in the real world, and often contradicts theory developed on speculation. A closed system based on speculation and prior knowledge will not accept the fact that there are individuals in this generation as capable of generating new ideas as any prior generation. And, the next generation will produce more new thinkers, more new perspectives. A closed system automatically rejects or devalues the new (treats the new as heresy). Research, as well as new concepts developing in theology, are not intended to destroy the old, as some might believe. Middle ground thinkers are capable of preserving the old while the new takes hold. Such a position takes more work and more knowledge than the "either-or" of false dichotomies.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 22 May 2008 - 05:06 PM

[JosephM]

minsocal, on May 22 2008, 05:46 PM, said:

(snip)
Research exists to find out how things work in the real world, and often contradicts theory developed on speculation. A closed system based on speculation and prior knowledge will not accept the fact that there are individuals in this generation as capable of generating new ideas as any prior generation. And, the next generation will produce more new thinkers, more new perspectives. A closed system automatically rejects or devalues the new (treats the new as heresy). Research, as well as new concepts developing in theology, are not intended to destroy the old, as some might believe. Middle ground thinkers are capable of preserving the old while the new takes hold. Such a position takes more work and more knowledge than the "either-or" of false dichotomies.

It seems to me this (this quoted paragraph) is perhaps a most excellent observation.

Love in Christ,
Joseph

[canajan, eh?]

JosephM, on May 22 2008, 08:01 PM, said:

It seems to me this (this quoted paragraph) is perhaps a most excellent observation.

Love in Christ,
Joseph

I second that! Thank you, Minsocal.
Jen

[canajan, eh?]

Minsocal, have you been following the recent research about neuroplasticity? My son gave me Norman Doidge's new book The Brain That Changes Itself, and it's a wonderfully accessible read for anyone who wants to understand more about the inconnection between cell growth in the brain and healing in a person as a whole.

One of the great tragedies of modern medicine was the dogma that arose about a hundred years ago with regard to the growth of new brain cells in adults. Until 1998, researchers operated on the assumption that the adult brain couldn't grow new neurons. This theory was based on research that had been carried on severely stressed rats. (At least, I think it was rats . . .) The rats seemed unable to grow new neurons when exposed to learning situations. The observation was correct. But the interpretation of the observation was completely wrong. Turns out the rats couldn't generate new neurons because of high, sustained levels of stress hormones. The stress hormones interfered with the rats' ability to process new learning situations (i.e. build new brain cells and new connections between existing cells). In other words, the traditional scientific belief that old dogs can't learn new tricks is wrong. Old dogs can learn new tricks. (Now that I've turned 50, I suppose I'm one of those old dogs. Woof.)

I keep a file called "Oops -- we made a mistake." It's filled with articles about scientific researchers who have overturned scientific dogma by asking brave new questions. I wish I could say I have as many articles from theological innovators as I have from scientific innovators.

Alas, I must make do with interesting articles from Biblical Archaeology Review.

Jen

This post has been edited by canajan, eh?: 22 May 2008 - 07:35 PM